May 22nd, 2013
09:36 AM ET

History repeating itself in Afghan conflict?

"Fareed Zakaria GPS," Sundays at 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. ET on CNN

Fareed speaks with William Dalrymple, author of the new book ‘Return of A King:  The Battle for Afghanistan, 1839-42,’ about what history can teach us about the current conflict in Afghanistan.

What do you think retreat is going to look like, based on history?

Well, the British retreat from Kabul really couldn't have gone worse. There’s every reason to hope this one would go a bit better, not least because you've got air transport. In 1841, there was a huge uprising against the British. It began in the south, in Helmand. It spread north. And, very soon, the British were surrounded in the same cities in the sense in which American troops are surrounded today, in Kandahar and Jalalabad and many in Kabul, a small area of Kabul, a fortress against a largely hostile, rural hinterland.

The British lost their supplies very early in this.  They had stupidly kept both their ammunition and their food in outlying forts…The retreat from Kabul that followed began on January 6, 1842, and is one of the great imperial disasters – 18,500 men, women and children, of whom only about 5,000 were British. The rest were Sepoys from North India, from Bihar, from Uttar Pradesh.  They marched out into the snow.  They had no idea how to cope in winter warfare. They weren’t equipped or clad or trained for it. And six days later, one man made it through to Jalalabad.  Everyone else was either killed, enslaved or taken hostage.

Now, the hostile forces that you describe are in, as you say, the south of Afghanistan, Kandahar. This is precisely the same problem that the United States faces, which is that the area of Afghanistan that is hostile to America and to Karzai and the government we've put in place is the Pashtun area, the heartland. Why is it that the Pashtun…who opposed the British opposing the U.S.?

Well, it's history repeating itself very, very closely. And  I only wish I'd been able to give a copy of this book 10 years ago to George W. Bush or to Tony Blair, because I think apparently in the British Tory Party, there was a tradition that you keep well out of Afghanistan until even the 1950s, when Sir Alec Douglas-Hume took over the keys of Downing Street from Harold Macmillan, the old man who said, “let me give you one piece of advice, young man,” and looking down from his Times he said “as long as you don't invade Afghanistan, you'll probably do fine.”

And we kind of wish that that folk wisdom had lasted another 30 years or 40 years. We could have done with that. If you invade Iraq, you can run off with the oil revenues. But if you invade Afghanistan, you always just pour money in. It's a huge economic hole in the budget. And the kind of low level insurgency which the Afghans are so brilliant at – just a slow attrition of foreign forces – in the end, everyone throws up their hands and says, well, it's just not worth it.

Post by:
Topics: Afghanistan

« Previous entry
soundoff (5 Responses)
  1. rightospeak

    Excellent article, a brilliant man who is not afraid to write the truth about our occupation and calls it a 'huge economic hole in the budget". For a very long time I have been writing comments stating that the best we can do is to leave ASAP before we lose any more of our men and treasury. The Big Money Trust that runs our country must be making money on the war there. Gore Vidal wrote before the 9/11 false flag that Bush was ready to go to Afghanistan.

    May 22, 2013 at 10:27 am | Reply
  2. Joseph McCarthy

    Is history repeating itself in the Afghan conflict? Hopefully, yes! The British have nor ever had any more right to be in Afghanistan than the Russians or we Americans! The bottom line here is that Afghanistan belongs to the Afghans and no one else, no matter how many ignorant fools blog in here to say otherwise!

    May 22, 2013 at 2:11 pm | Reply
  3. j. von hettlingen

    Tony Blair didn't know the British history, or else he would have thought twice before joining the war in Afghanistan, which was at the centre of the so-called "Great Game" in the 19th century when Imperial Russia and the British Empire in India vied for influence. The Brits said they didn't want to annex Afghanistan as a colony, but just to have it as a stable buffer zone to prevent the encroachment of Russian agents trying to destabilise India. So they spent a lot of time training the Afghan army, which is just what the ISAF are doing now in Afghanistan.

    May 23, 2013 at 9:03 am | Reply

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

« Previous entry